4 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/10/15 4:11am)
The First Amendment is arguably the most defining piece of the United States’ Constitution; “defining” in the sense that it effectively provides a foundation for the American ideal of liberty, which is central to our country’s political identity. The First Amendment affords us the opportunity to speak freely and voice our opinions without punishment. It empowers us to take ownership of those opinions and express ourselves. People have fought and died to defend and preserve this right but we often take this right for granted, exercising it carelessly, even unsafely. Its absoluteness, while necessary, may also be its crux; the hurtful, the defamatory and the untrue are not out of bounds. People often equate their right to speak freely as the right to offend others. This isn’t illegal, but such an interpretation ignores social responsibility. Although we have the right to speak freely, it’s not always right to do so.
We need to interpret free speech as a responsibility in addition to a right. The initial intent behind the First Amendment was to ensure that citizens could safely express opinions about their government without fear of censorship or punishment. Our modern understanding of the free speech is almost entirely disconnected from its original purpose; we are using it as a justification for saying whatever we want and, in doing so, we ultimately compromise the integrity of the right.
Speaking freely and speaking responsibly are not mutually exclusive. In order to have engaging and meaningful discussions, we sometimes need to monitor our language for the sake of respect, but this doesn’t mean we need to censor our opinions altogether. Additionally, while it’s important to monitor what we say and how we say it, it’s just as important that we make a conscious effort to understand what we hear and how we hear it. At the beginning of the year, the Campus published an editorial titled, “The Coddling of the Middlebury Mind,” in an effort to encourage members of the Middlebury community to “learn to disagree without shutting down, refusing to listen and labeling.” If speaking freely is the First Amendment, listening openly should be Amendment 1.5. When others speak, we need to listen attentively, even if we don’t agree. By plugging our ears, we don’t get rid of the things that make us uncomfortable - we avoid them.
While we have the right to free speech, we also have an obligation to consider our audience. When we contribute to conversations – whether public or private - we need to respect those with whom we engage. However, conversations aren’t conversations if nobody’s listening. When people speak, it’s because they have something to express, and they want others to hear it. We should challenge ourselves to listen to those voices and try to understand and learn from them, just as we would hope that others would listen to us when we voice our own thoughts.
(04/15/15 6:12pm)
Umoja, Middlebury’s African Student Organization, is preparing to host a conference that will take place on Saturday, April 25. The conference, “Education in Africa,” will begin at 10 a.m. in Wilson Hall with a presentation by esteemed guest speaker Fred Swaniker.
Following the keynote presentation, attendees will move to Bicentennial Hall for lunch and breakout discussion sessions led by students, professors, and professionals in the field. A gala dinner will take place in Atwater Dining Hall from 6 to 8 p.m. and will feature music from Inogma, Middlebury’s African Music Group, as well as a fashion show. The conference will conclude with a party in Coltrane Lounge, where there will be food and African music.
“I think it’s valuable for students to attend this conference because it exposes them to the continent,” said Hiruy Ephrem ’17, president of Umoja and leader of the conference.
“There are not too many opportunities at Middlebury to discuss Africa and this conference allows for students to learn about the different components that go into providing education. Furthermore, it’s interactive so it would not be solely lectures. There will be discussions and many opportunities to ask questions at our keynote and breakout sessions,” concluded Ephrem.
The theme for the conference, “Education in Africa,” builds upon the theme of last year’s conference, “Rebranding Africa in the 21st Century,” as Umoja continually seeks to promote Africa in a positive light.
“It is a fascinating and wonderful place, but many people either don’t know much about or have a somewhat biased view against Africa,” said Dominick Tanoh ’18, who will speak at the conference.
“When some people hear ‘Africa’ their minds automatically jump to images of violence, corruption, and misfortune. While there are still major problems on the continent, I believe that the point of this conference is to highlight the great progress that has been made and the greater hopes that Africa has.”
The conference will include a variety of speakers who will shed light on the growth of Africa. Keynote speaker Fred Swaniker will discuss the development of leadership and education on the continent. Swaniker is the founder of the African Leadership Academy (ALA). He graduated from Macalester College, received his MBA from Stanford, and went on to become a consultant at McKinsey & Company. In 2004, Swaniker established ALA as well as the African Leadership Network, a platform for students to take advantage of leadership opportunities. With over a million views, Swaniker’s TED talk, “The Leaders Who Ruined Africa, and the Generation Who Can Fix It,” has garnered plenty of attention recently.
“I think that Fred Swaniker is a perfect choice to speak on the steps Africa is taking to rebrand itself. His education programs on the continent really represent a larger movement there. By investing in the young people of Africa, Mr. Swaniker is helping change what Africa could become,” said Tanoh.
Sena Voncujovi ’17 will also be speaking at the conference. Voncujovi, a third generation voodoo priest, will lead a breakout session and will discuss traditional spiritual knowledge and philosophies in Western Africa. Voncujovi hopes to highlight what it means to be impactful on the continent.
“There’s no shortage of people who want to help, but the problem is, how do help without coming across as condescending or trying to impose your own culture?” Voncujovi said. Like Swaniker, Voncujovi believes that “Africa’s untapped resource is its people,” and he hopes that this conference will help people recognize that Africans need to be given the opportunity to use leadership to help the continent.
Armel Nibasumba ’16, Priscilla Makundi ’16, and Daniela Barajas ’14.5 will also lead breakout sessions. Nibasumba will be discussing his educational project in Burundi called Twese for Peace, which was recently featured in the Boston Globe. Makundi and Barajas will be discuss their project in Tanzania called Pamoja Tunaweza Initiative, which is aimed at empowering women through entrepreneurship and leadership training.
“I really am hoping that people come with whatever biases and preconceptions that they may have and we are able to have conversations that might challenge people to create a fuller and more realistic image of Africa and spark greater curiosity about African life, culture, and history,” Tanoh said.
(02/25/15 11:33pm)
As of the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Munford has become an Intentional Living interest house.
Over the past few years, students have consistently applied to live in Munford as an intentional living Superblock. The sustained commitment to this theme in Munford caused the College to transition the space into a permanent interest house. Students can apply as individuals rather than coordinate 31 person rosters for each semester, as the Superblock process necessitates.
According to Meagan Neal ’15, one of Munford’s two student coordinators, the Intentional Living House began as a Superblock, “modeled after the idea of intentional living communities that are found worldwide.” Neal notes that all residents contribute “their own interpretation of [intentional living], which is partly why the space has worked so well.”
On a bustling campus where schoolwork and other pressures abound, the idea of a safe space that promotes, “reflection and intentionality in everyday life” resonates with many individuals, Neal said.
Residents of the house share many interests, goals, and values; namely, they “strive to live intentionally in a diverse, mindful, and inclusive community,” according to the Intentional Living House website. “So much real learning happens when you slow down, engage in deep conversation, and ground yourself in the present moment,” Neal said.
The Intentional Living House has hosted community events such as talks, workshops, poetry night, breakfast for the custodial staff, and parties. However, the house’s values manifest themselves not only through these events, but also through the daily interactions that take place between members of the house community; Neal cites “all the countless times I’ve walked into the common room to find people sprawled on our couches talking and laughing” as her favorite moments as a resident of Munford.
Although second semester has only just begun, deadlines for fall term housing opportunities are quickly approaching. Some deadlines, including those for Superblock applications, have passed. Superblocks are a popular housing options for rising juniors and seniors who hope to live among other students with shared interests. The residential spaces often vary: this year, the possible locations include Homestead House, Meeker House, Palmer House, and the five Mods (Cousteau, Earhart, Norgay, Peary, and Ride).
(02/25/15 11:32pm)
The off-campus housing lottery, which took place on Tuesday, Feb. 17, approved 58 rising seniors to live off campus for the 2015-16 school year. Including senior Febs who have been granted approval, the number of students permitted to live off campus next year amounts to 95—a slight decrease from this school year’s 106. This past week, administrators and faculty members involved in housing have been swamped by groups of students seeking answers as to why they were not granted approval.
The results of the off-campus lottery—a random selection process—came as a surprise to many: in the past, students who have applied for off-campus approval have had seemingly little trouble with the process. Recent bed shortages last winter term suggested the College is in the midst of a housing crisis.
“In terms of practicality, it doesn’t make sense to me why the numbers for off-campus have gone down,” Somers Brush ’16 said. “Coming back from abroad, I was put in a double within a suite in Hepburn with three people I didn’t know. This wasn’t an ideal way to start off after being gone for so long, and it makes me think that Middlebury has an on-campus housing shortage. Until that shortage is addressed, it seems that having the maximum amount of off-campus students would be beneficial not only for seniors, but for all students,” she concluded.
The waitlist for off-campus housing is extensive. In the days that followed the lottery, many waitlisted students approached Residental Systems Coordinator Karin Hall-Kolts searching for guidance and explanations. Hall-Kolts could explain only how the waitlist works, as general silence from Old Chapel prevented her from being able to give waitlisted students firm answers about their chances of living off campus.
Administrative silence last week contributed to an atmosphere of confusion and frustration, which has naturally given rise to many questions and theories regarding the situation. Earlier this year, Middlebury community members vocalized frustration about student partying off campus.
“This is the first year, in all the time that I’ve been here doing the work that I do, where we’ve had real issues with our neighbors, our neighbors who are close to campus,” said Special Assistant to the President Dave Donahue.
As the surprising outcomes of the lottery arrive in the wake of the town’s exasperation, many students speculate that the College is decreasing the number of students allowed off campus in an effort to mend a potentially damaged town-gown relationship.
Frustration abounds not just among students; the landlord of an off-campus house has expressed his concerns with the situation. One group of students who put deposits to rent his house in the fall of this year now faces a difficult challenge; some in the group were not approved to live off campus while others were granted permission. In an email to Hall-Kolts and Interim Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott, this landlord, who has been a Middlebury town resident for 35 years, wrote to the administration pleading with them to reconsider.
He wrote, “How is it fair to ‘punish’ these students by changing the rules at this late date and based upon the problems of last fall when they weren’t even part of the problem? I’m talking of course about the students who committed to live at 325 and 341 Weybridge St. Each of these students was excited about their housing choice for their senior year. They had far more foresight and organizational acuity than most of their peers (at the beginning of their junior year agreeing on leases for their senior year) and each received outstanding references.”
This landlord’s email suggests that the decision to decrease the number of students living off campus is a result of the town-gown issues that ensued this past fall after a number of off-campus parties left many local residents angry.
“A logical response to the issues that we’ve had this fall would be to bring some students back on campus,” Donahue said. “In terms of town-gown relations, we’ve done more work this year trying to address the concerns of neighbors than we’ve done at any time that I can recall.”
However, while the decrease in off-campus spots may seem like a response to neighbors’ concerns, it is in fact an administrative attempt to simply lower the maximum number of students awarded off-campus spots, and this administrative movement “stands alone, separate from the issues we’ve had,” according to Donahue.
Associate Dean of Students Doug Adams further clarified the decision.
He said, “I think that there’s a perception that there was a drastic reduction in the number of students that were approved to live off campus. The reality is that the number was reduced by about ten for our lottery process. In the past, we’ve normally done about 95 students during the lottery process to approve to live off campus.”
The number of students allowed to live off campus is adjusted annually, depending on enrollment and campus housing needs. As a residential college, Middlebury assumes that most students will live on campus, and housing policy prioritizes filling as many beds on campus as possible. This year, the number of students allowed off-campus was reduced only slightly, but because over 100 people applied to live off-campus, the slight reduction seems much more dramatic to waitlisted students.
The approval numbers are further complicated by the number of senior Febs who are currently living off campus and who have chosen to stay off campus, as those Febs are accounted for in the number of students allowed to live off campus.
“This year, that was a much higher number than we’ve seen before: about 27 students. So we subtract that from the total number of students that we were expecting to take off campus, and we always do,” Adams said.
Ultimately, this year’s housing lottery has been complicated by a few factors with which most students were not familiar.
Adams continued, “We have a confluence of two things: we have a smaller number of slots that we can make available because we’ve had a larger number of students transferring through, and we slightly reduced the number of students that were in the mix by reducing the total number that we were shooting for by about ten.”
Despite what students may assume, the College has not chosen to change policies this year. Administrators are simply making housing adjustments that are standard procedure.